Category Archives: International news

International news

Yes, we won the Cold War

Barack Obama’s announcement that the United States will begin normalizing relations with its long time enemy Cuba brings to mind a truism that plays into this development.

It is that the Cold War is over. We won! The communists lost it.

Indeed, long before the Cold War was declared over — with the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 — we had relations with communist countries. China and the Soviet Union are the two examples.

The president noted today that we even restored relations with Vietnam, a nation with which we fought a long and bloody war that cost more than 58,000 American lives.

Cuba? Until today, it remained on our list of nations non grata.

And why? Well, it didn’t pose a military threat. Its economy is in shambles. Its people still are suffering from lack of freedom and the depravity brought on it by the repressive economic policies of the Marxists who run the island nation.

We’ve made our point. Our system is better than their system.

We outlasted the communists by forcing the Soviet Union to spend money on its military while its people suffered. Then came its restructuring and its newfound openness policies.

All the while, we maintained an embassy in Moscow and they had one in Washington.

The Cubans? We continued to punish them.

President Obama has done what should have been done — could have been done — many years ago.

It’s no doubt going to anger many members of the Cuban-American community who hate the communists who govern the nation of their birth. Will it matter in the grand scheme to the president? Not one bit. He’s a lame duck. He’ll be out of office in two years. The Cuban-American voting bloc supports Republicans overwhelmingly as it is.

The normalization should proceed quickly nonetheless. We won the Cold War. It’s time to move on.

 

International news

Common sense returns to U.S.-Cuba relations

It didn’t work. The United States sought for five decades to punish Cuba because it went from being an old-fashioned autocratic dictatorship to a Marxist tyranny.

The aim was to bring Cuba to its knees and to send a message to its major benefactor — the Soviet Union — that we just wouldn’t tolerate a communist dictatorship at our doorstep.

Well, five-plus decades later, that idiotic non-relationship took a huge step toward its end. President Obama today announced that the United States is going to begin “normalizing” relations with the island nation.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/obama-us-re-establishing-relations-with-cuba/ar-BBgUJV0

It … is … about … damn … time!

An American aide worker, Alan Gross, who had been imprisoned for five years in Cuba was released today. In exchange, we sent three Cubans back to their homeland. They all had been accused of spying. Gross’s release apparently removed the final impediment to the normalization of relations.

Obama made sense on virtually every point he made this morning in a brief televised announcement.

Cuba poses zero military threat to the United States. The Soviet Union has vanished. Russia’s economy is imploding. The Cuban people remain shackled by the tyranny that governs them, but Obama today insisted today that the Cuban government start loosening the binding that keeps Cubans from expressing themselves freely.

The president noted that the United States is virtually the only nation on Earth that honors the embargo slapped on Cuba in the early 1960s. Yes, Cuba trades with the rest of the world, but its totalitarian government has impeded prosperity from flowing to the people. That, too, should change, Obama said.

The president noted today that Cuba is still governed by someone named “Castro,” but it’s Raul, not Fidel.

He said he called Raul Castro today to tell him of the impending change in the U.S.-Cuba relationship. I’ll presume Fidel’s brother agreed to it.

The question now is whether Congress will agree to legislate an end to the economic embargo. The president can establish diplomatic ties with another nation all by himself, but Congress has to agree to end the embargo, as its enactment was done legislatively.

Here’s hoping the common sense caucus of Congress will agree to what is a profoundly sensible course of action.

Continuing to do the same thing repeatedly while hoping for a different result means it’s time to change what you’re doing. We can continue to have ideological competition between the two countries, but we ought to do so face to face.

Congratulations and thanks, Mr. President, for restoring some sense to our nation’s foreign policy.

 

International news

Did the U.S. destroy the Russian economy?

A question is being bandied about in the international press while the world watches the Russian economy implode.

Have the U.S.-led sanctions against Russia brought about the collapse?

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/barack-obama-vladimir-putin-russian-economy-113626.html?hp=t2_r

You remember when President Obama announced the sanctions after Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine and sent troops into the neighboring country because Russian President Vladimir Putin didn’t like all that anti-Russia rhetoric coming out of Kiev.

Some hardliners on the right wanted the United States to do more, to bring military pressure to bear — perhaps by arming the Ukrainians who were fighting the advance of Russian armor and infantry into their country. The sanctions, they reckoned, wouldn’t have much of an impact.

Interesting that the sanctions all by themselves might have helped bring the Russian economy to its knees. The value of the ruble is plummeting, along with the price of oil, a major source of Russian income. The sanctions have tied up Russian investments abroad and have made it quite difficult for Russian businessman to function.

Russia remains a major military power. Its economic standing, though, has been reduced to second- or perhaps third-tier status.

According to Politico: “’It’s hard to disaggregate out the independent effects of the sanctions from the bigger story. Obviously the driver is oil prices,’ said Obama’s former ambassador to Moscow, Michael McFaul.

“’That said, there is no doubt that sanctions raise uncertainty about the Russian economy. Their own minister of economic development said today that the ruble is falling faster than the macroeconomic indicators would suggest it should be,’ McFaul added.”

The sanctions are punishing the one-time super power.

It remains to been, of course, whether Putin’s future adventurism will end. My guess is that he’ll have to think twice, maybe more, about getting involved in other countries’ internal affairs.

 

International news

Monsters strike once again

Do you suppose the madmen who opened fire on a military school in Pakistan would say their attack was a “proportionate response” to the deaths of Taliban killers?

If they do, then they’ve just demonstrated for all the world to see the ruthlessness of this enemy.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/pakistani-forces-reclaim-school-after-%e2%80%98horrific%e2%80%99-taliban-attack-kills-at-least-132/ar-BBgRAT9

Gunmen opened fire in a Peshawar, Pakistan school, killing at least 132 people — most of whom were students.

The nine killers themselves were killed by Pakistani military and police after a nine-hour gun battle.

I guess there can be no limit to the hideousness of this cabal of killers. They once ran the government in Afghanistan and they’ve been mounting terrorist attacks there and throughout the region ever since their ouster in 2001 right after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States.

The list of ghastly incidents of violence is too numerous to recount here. The latest attack on the military school is just one more example of how we must fight this enemy.

We must keep fighting them with extreme vigor — and prejudice.

 

International news, national news

It's Cheney who's 'full of crap'

Richard Bruce Cheney doesn’t believe, apparently, in the same America many millions of others do.

Oh sure. Many millions of other Americans support the former vice president’s world view. I respect that. I just happen to fundamentally disagree with Cheney. No surprise there, right?

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/cheney-slams-senate-torture-report-says-practices-were-effective?CID=sm_FB

It’s that report on torture that’s got Cheney all wadded up.

The report released by Senate Intelligence Committee Democrats asserts that the United States employed illegal interrogation techniques on alleged terrorists taken captive immediately after the 9/11 attacks. Cheney’s view — as if anyone expected otherwise — is to say the “enhanced interrogation techniques” produced “actionable intelligence” that protected Americans from further attacks.

The report says otherwise.

I also am going to climb aboard the same wagon as a bona fide American war hero, Republican U.S. Sen. John McCain, who speaks from personal experience in expressing his support for what the Intelligence Committee Democrats say about torture techniques. McCain’s view of those “EITs” is formed by his own experience as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. He said that captives will say anything to stop the pain and that the information they give to the enemy is more bogus than believable.

Cheney continues to defend tactics that are not in keeping with the values we hold dear in this country. Yes, we’re at war with some loathsome organizations that employ equally loathsome tactics on the people they capture. Does that mean we should sink to that level of barbarism? No.

It means we employ our own sophisticated interrogation techniques to glean information.

And no, no one is saying we should kiss the captives on the cheek, as some have suggested.

What the Senate panel is saying, as I understand it, is that the United States must be true to its claim of being better than the enemy we’re seeking to destroy.

 

 

 

International news

McCain knows — and hates — torture

In the name of all that is sane and sensible, if only the rest of America would listen to John McCain when he talks about torture.

The Arizona Republican knows what torture is and what it does. He speaks from intense and deeply moving personal experience.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/09/john-mccain-says-cia-tort_n_6295986.html

And that is why he needs to be heeded when he condemns the practice of torturing suspected al-Qaeda terrorists, as detailed in a Senate Intelligence Committee summary report.

McCain is the only member of the U.S. Senate who’s been tortured by the enemy with whom we were at war. He spent more than five years as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam. So when this man speaks of torture, he knows of which he speaks.

At issue is whether the techniques employed on those suspected terrorists produced “actionable intelligence” in the war against international terrorism. McCain believes such interrogation techniques drive captives to say anything to avoid being tortured.

“I know from personal experience that the abuse of prisoners will produce more bad than good intelligence,” McCain said in a speech on the Senate floor. “I know that victims of torture will offer intentionally misleading information if they think their captors will believe it. I know they will say whatever they think their torturers want them to say if they believe it will stop their suffering.

“Most of all, I know the use of torture compromises that which most distinguishes us from our enemies, our belief that all people, even captured enemies, possess basic human rights, which are protected by international conventions the U.S. not only joined, but for the most part authored,” McCain said.

The Republican has been fairly surly and gruff in his criticism of President Obama, who beat him in the 2008 race for the presidency. But the president vowed to erase these interrogation techniques from our country’s policy manual. To that end, McCain has endorsed his former foe’s initiative.

The torture tactics used on the terror suspects well could have been counterproductive as we’ve continued to search for and eliminate terrorist leaders.

What’s more, as McCain has noted, they run counter to the belief that “even captured enemies” must be protected from barbaric treatment.

International news, national news

Bush tossed under the bus?

This likely is a minority opinion, but I’ll suggest it anyway: It’s sounding to me as though former President Bush’s inner circle is trying to toss the commander in chief under the bus on this Senate report dealing with how the CIA treated suspected terrorists.

The Senate Intelligence Committee summary report issued by the Democratic members blames the CIA for misleading the president and the public over the “enhanced interrogation techniques” being employed to glean intelligence from terror suspects immediately after 9/11.

The implication is that President Bush was kept in the dark. It’s the CIA’s fault that this went on.

Then here comes former Vice President Cheney and former CIA director Gen. Michael Hayden to say, “Oh, no. The president was made aware of what the CIA was doing.” Cheney talked to Fox News about it; Hayden spoke to MSNBC. They both said the president was kept in the loop during all of it.

Interesting, yes?

I haven’t read the entire summary. I have seen excerpts. Some of it is quite grotesque, detailing how interrogators injected suspects with pureed food through what was described as “rectal feeding.”

Did the president know that was occurring?

This debate will continue likely well past the foreseeable future. It’s the next top story du jour.

If the president was unaware of what the CIA was doing, then the former VP and the ex-CIA boss haven’t done him any favors by blabbing about what he knew and when he knew it.

Might there be some backside-covering going on here? I’m just asking.

 

International news

GOP fires back at torture report

To no one’s surprise, U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee Republicans have their own version of whether “enhanced interrogation techniques” made America safer in the wake of 9/11.

They say the tactics saved lives and protected the country against further harm.

The GOP senators say the tactics were necessary to gather intelligence that led eventually to the killing of Osama bin Laden.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/gop-senators-defend-cia-alternate-report-113434.html

Intelligence panel Democrats are standing by their assertion — correctly, in my view — that American intelligence officials and military leaders could have obtained all of that information and protected Americans without subjecting terror suspects to torture.

So there it is: yet another political schism has erupted on Capitol Hill.

As Politico reports: “The GOP report decried the (Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne) Feinstein study, arguing that it contained ‘faulty analysis, serious inaccuracies, and misrepresentations of fact’ to create a series of false conclusions about the counterterrorism program’s effectiveness and the CIA’s interactions with Congress and the White House.”

So, the other side has responded with what it contends is accurate analysis and objective examination of the facts. Is that what they’re saying?

I’ve noted already that this discussion is going to turn into a liar’s contest over time. One side is going to accuse the other of deceit. It’ll go back and forth.

I’ll just stick to my assertion that “enhanced interrogation” can — and should — include tactics that do not include the physical torturing of enemy captives. I’d even allow for sleep deprivation that would include round-the-clock badgering of detainees as a way to make ’em squeal.

Still, the debate rages on.

International news, national news

You mean the CIA might have fibbed?

The Senate report is out: The CIA reportedly lied to President Bush about how it was using “enhanced interrogation techniques” against suspected terrorists.

And to no one’s surprise — certainly not mine — former CIA director Michael Hayden has fired back. He’s defending his agency’s handling of the interrogation techniques.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/cia-torture-report-113420.html?hp=c1_3

My tendency is to believe the Senate, that the CIA was less than truthful. After all, the CIA is a spy agency and its agents are, shall we say, trained to mislead.

The threshold question that will need to answered and then examined for its veracity is whether these techniques — which some call “torture” — produced actionable intelligence that helped the good guys fight the bad guys.

It’s becoming something of a liar’s contest. The CIA and the Bush administration say they did; others say the techniques didn’t provide any information that more normal techniques could have obtained.

The key element is whether torturing the al-Qaeda suspects helped our spooks find Osama bin Laden and whether that information led to the May 2011 SEAL team raid that killed the world’s most wanted terrorist.

The debate has been joined.

Meanwhile, U.S. embassies around the world have been put on heightened alert in case terrorists become so angry at the report that they strike at Americans abroad.

I am one American who does not want to see our forces torture captive combatants. We keep saying we’re above that kind of thing, that we don’t want to reduce our standards to the level of the terrorists we are trying to destroy.

I’m fine with that.

Our intelligence agencies are packed with well-trained professional interrogators who are fully capable of obtaining information through serious questioning and, yes, perhaps some threatening techniques. To inflict actual pain and suffering on those suspects, though, is no better than what they do to captives under their control.

Exceptional nations are able to employ exceptional tactics — even in wartime.

 

International news

U.S. must not rely on torture

An upcoming release of a CIA report on whether American officials tortured al-Qaeda suspects to gain “actionable intelligence” to use in the war on terror is bound to reignite a long-standing debate.

Are we better than that? Does the United States of America need to rely on barbaric procedures to gain the upper hand against the enemy?

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/12/torture-report-dick-cheney-110306.html?ml=po#.VIbXKVJ0yt9

My own mind is made up on that matter.

I do not believe the United State should torture enemy captives.

We’ll hear from those who say, “Big deal. They do it to us. An eye for an eye. Give them a taste of what they deliver to our own captives.” I can hear it from some of my very own friends on the subject and they’ll respond that way when they read these words.

I’ll stand by my assertion that this country is supposed to stand for grander ideals than the enemy we are fighting. We proclaim it all the time, don’t we?

Whether the tactics employed right after the 9/11 attacks — as lined out in the report — produced the kind of information that enabled us to find and kill Osama bin Laden also will be open to debate. Some say it did. Other say it didn’t.

Then we’ll hear the debate over how to define “torture.” Does the term “enhanced interrogation techniques” actually become a euphemism for the “t” word?

It’ll be a complicated debate. For the sake of our country’s stated belief in a higher ideal, though, I do hope we can declare once again, with emphasis, that torture is wrong and will not be tolerated.